Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cable Road Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lima council advances Cable Road property ordinance to third reading after heated debate
Summary
Councilors and residents clashed over the Cable Road Improvement Project’s traffic and business impacts; opponents raised access and small-business concerns while supporters cited safety benefits. The ordinance moved to a third reading after a 3–5 roll call.
Lima City Council on second reading debated Ordinance 22-26, which would authorize the mayor to purchase or accept donations of property for the Cable Road Improvement Project (PID 112573). Councilors and members of the public traded sharply different views on whether the design — including lane reductions and added bump-outs — would improve safety or harm businesses and emergency access.
At public comment, Samantha Ezel, who identified herself as a nearby resident, praised the project’s safety goals, saying the plan “will make Cable Road feel safer for drivers and pedestrians” and pointed to research suggesting fewer lanes can reduce long-term crashes. Dave Smith, also speaking from the public, warned the design could delay emergency vehicles and hurt businesses during prolonged construction: “This design will cause delay in the event of an accident or worse, a fire,” he said, and urged council to fully understand access implications before approving changes.
Council debate echoed those divisions. Councilor Napier read letters and emails from business owners and former local officials opposing the plan and said owners felt they had not been adequately informed. Councilor Glenn acknowledged constituent complaints but defended the project team’s work, emphasizing safety and expert input. Councilor Wilkerson and the meeting president cited repeated council discussion about speed and safety along Cable Road and said they would support changes aimed at slowing traffic and improving sidewalks.
Opposition crystalized in a roll call that produced a 3–5 tally against immediate passage on second reading; the council moved Ordinance 22-26 to a third reading to allow additional consideration and outreach. The president said the decision balances concerns from within the city and surrounding townships and reiterated that the project aims to “invest in lives, mobility and the future of our city.”
The council did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting; the item will return on third reading for further deliberation and possible vote.
